an effect, but most of it is positive, like disinfectants and antibiotics. You would have to gas America to put a dent in the
increased life expectancy due to those medical advances."
This is quite cynical and conclusions like this "shut down" a lot of people from looking further into their own chemical and toxic profiles: what chemicals are in their homes and communties as well as the workplace.
I have one suggestion: listen to Rachel Carson herself in a speech before the National Women's Press Club in 1962. She defends her position on the event of the release of "Silent Spring." This is one of the rare treasures of the Internet and software such as RealAudio.
Democracy NOW!
BTW, if the link doesn't come through, it is a Democracy Now! recording that was done on 12/29/97 and is kept at webactive.com
-steve grube ======================
Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
> Jim heartfield wrote:
>
> > In message <36AB795B.4B1A at gte.net>, Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad at gte.net>
> > writes
> >
> > >The statistics she cites are uncontroversial. Her view that corporate
> > >chemical pollution is a major cause *is* controversial. Her book is
> > >pretty darn compelling, though.
> >
> > Not in my view. For sure the chemicals that we are exposed to will have
> > an effect, but most of it is positive, like disinfectants and
> > antibiotics. You would have to gas America to put a dent in the
> > increased life expectancy due to those medical advances.
>
> This is a red herring, mein herr. Steingraber isn't talking about
> chemicals used for such purposes. She's talking about the effects of
> chemical pollutants in the environment as part of the epidimology of
> cancer.
>
> But, since you mention it, our rampant overuse of antibiotics
> (particular in livestock) is helping to bred new germs that are storming
> back at us something fierce. This is something that's an obvious hazard
> from an environmental perspective, which has been known about for a long
> time, but with nothing like an adequate response. Having an
> environmental perspective doesn't mean being anti-technology or
> anti-chemcial. It means being wise about how technology is deployed.
>
> --
> Paul Rosenberg
> Reason and Democracy
> rad at gte.net
>
> "Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/19990124/57b27b17/attachment.htm>